Media Back-Tracking on Iowa Caucus

**NCRAVEN** · 01-06-2012, 10:26 AM

Originally Posted by wickedsolo

People take what they say as gospel.

I think that the media and networks don't try to dispell any of that either. They know folks look to these clowns for news on current events and political topics.

Pretty sure you meant some people. Not trying to nit pick your post, it just really helps to not derail the thread if you (the royal you) are clear.

**HoustonRaven** · 01-06-2012, 10:35 AM

Agree with NC.

*Some* folks view that as gospel, but that's on them. The "media" has always been about getting the most eyes on their product so that dynamic is nothing new.

Go back to the founding of the country -- yellow journalism at its finest. The only thing that has changed is the way in which we receive it, not the quality or the general content.

It's up the individual to know what they are reading and the bias behind it.

**Galen Sevinne** · 01-06-2012, 11:07 AM

When Wicked is making strong comments like "damn near every media outlet you could get your hands on were just going on and on and on about how important it was. After the results came in, they all back tracked and started in with the "Well...it's really not THAT important"..."Iowa can't be taken too seriously..." etc, etc etc. you are overplaying your idea. Sure this happened but far short of the degree that you suggest. What you want to hear is how great Ron Paul did so he gets media slant in his direction. You want Ron Paul to take the spotlight and become the "next anti-romney man up". Sorry but Ron Paul would have needed to win in Iowa to draw that respect. He did well but not well enough to become the next man up. So in typical conservative fashion you want to blame the media for not giving you what you wanted. If you think the media is poo-pooing Iowa, how do you explain Santorum's immediate attention? Watch where he stands Saturday in the debates. I bet he will no longer be hanging out on the far left side of your t.v screen but will be just to the left of Romney in the center. The media is responding to Santorum who was truly the winner.

What you are asking for is exactly what you are complaining about. Bias. You want undue bias in the favor of a third place candidate.

**NCRAVEN** · 01-06-2012, 11:14 AM

Originally Posted by Galen Sevinne

What you are asking for is exactly what you are complaining about. Bias. You want undue bias in the favor of a third place candidate.

Wanting the media to not backtrack when the results come in is not bias, it's wanting them to be honest, unrealistic? Yes, Bias? No.

**wickedsolo** · 01-06-2012, 11:43 AM

Originally Posted by Galen Sevinne

When Wicked is making strong comments like "damn near every media outlet you could get your hands on were just going on and on and on about how important it was. After the results came in, they all back tracked and started in with the "Well...it's really not THAT important"..."Iowa can't be taken too seriously..." etc, etc etc. you are overplaying your idea. Sure this happened but far short of the degree that you suggest. What you want to hear is how great Ron Paul did so he gets media slant in his direction. You want Ron Paul to take the spotlight and become the "next anti-romney man up". Sorry but Ron Paul would have needed to win in Iowa to draw that respect. He did well but not well enough to become the next man up. So in typical conservative fashion you want to blame the media for not giving you what you wanted. If you think the media is poo-pooing Iowa, how do you explain Santorum's immediate attention? Watch where he stands Saturday in the debates. I bet he will no longer be hanging out on the far left side of your t.v screen but will be just to the left of Romney in the center. The media is responding to Santorum who was truly the winner.

What you are asking for is exactly what you are complaining about. Bias. You want undue bias in the favor of a third place candidate.

Again, you're focusing on Ron Paul.

I don't care about that.

If the Iowa caucus is important, then it's important regardless of who wins or loses. If it's not important, then it doesn't matter who wins or loses or ties, right?

There is no consistency.

**Galen Sevinne** · 01-06-2012, 12:34 PM

Originally Posted by wickedsolo

Again, you're focusing on Ron Paul.

I don't care about that.

If the Iowa caucus is important, then it's important regardless of who wins or loses. If it's not important, then it doesn't matter who wins or loses or ties, right?

There is no consistency.

Okay so if the media has dismissed Iowa then how do you account for the attention Santorum is getting now? His South Carolina poll numbers have jumped from 4% to almost 20% in CNN polls. His comments are now splashed across most major media front pages. Its hard to make a point that the media is choosing to dismiss Iowa when the guy who outperformed the most there is now getting most of the attention. If it wasn't the case, the media would be talking more about how it looks more like Romney will close this whole thing out quicker than anyone thought his win in Iowa, and impending wins in NH and SC. But instead, Santorum is everywhere. I just don't see your point outside of Ron Paul not getting press which was really your original premise and the reason I return to it. If anything it seems to me that Santorum is getting too much media attention as a result of Iowa.

**wickedsolo** · 01-06-2012, 12:42 PM

Originally Posted by Galen Sevinne

Okay so if the media has dismissed Iowa then how do you account for the attention Santorum is getting now? His South Carolina poll numbers have jumped from 4% to almost 20% in CNN polls. His comments are now splashed across most major media front pages. Its hard to make a point that the media is choosing to dismiss Iowa when the guy who outperformed the most there is now getting most of the attention. If it wasn't the case, the media would be talking more about how it looks more like Romney will close this whole thing out quicker than anyone thought his win in Iowa, and impending wins in NH and SC. But instead, Santorum is everywhere. I just don't see your point outside of Ron Paul not getting press which was really your original premise and the reason I return to it. If anything it seems to me that Santorum is getting too much media attention as a result of Iowa.

It wasn't my original premise, but pick and choose whatever you wish to read. My original premise was the media's portrayal of Iowa was full of grandeur and importance until the results came in and then they quickly reversed their original commentary. Fair weather media pundits apparently.

Ron Paul doesn't get coverage anyway, so what does that matter?

And Iowa IS important and makes a HUGE difference in the nomination process. That is why Santorum is getting all of the attention right now, which he should because technically, he did win Iowa and Iowa is important in the nomination process.

**HoustonRaven** · 01-06-2012, 01:16 PM

I disagree with the premise, both from candidates and the media, as to the level of importance of winning Iowa.

Ask Mike Huckabee, Bob Dole, Dick Gephardt, Tom Harkin, etc how important it was to their prospects.

If there was anyone who needed to win Iowa it was Paul. He faces two states back-to-back where he is not polling particularly well. He needed the youth, independent vote that Iowa has provided in the past and didn't get it. For his supporters to say Iowa was a victory are spinning it.

**Galen Sevinne** · 01-06-2012, 02:58 PM

So this is your premise:

Originally Posted by wickedsolo

It wasn't my original premise, but pick and choose whatever you wish to read. My original premise was the media's portrayal of Iowa was full of grandeur and importance until the results came in and then they quickly reversed their original commentary. Fair weather media pundits apparently.

and you use this to suppport it:

Originally Posted by wickedsolo

And

Iowa IS important and makes a HUGE difference in the nomination process. That is why Santorum is getting all of the attention right now

, which he should because technically, he did win Iowa and Iowa is important in the nomination process.

I am not sure how you extract from that train of thought that the media is somehow backtracking on what they see as the importance of Iowa when the guy who essentially wins Iowa (santorum) earns all the media. Sounds pretty consistent to me but certainly you are free to hate and criticize the media until your hearts content.

Actually I agree with HR here which happens about every 1000 posts. Most of the media I read downplayed Iowa from the beginning as no longer that important and that opinion was only reinforced with Santorum's unlikely success there. This will all be confirmed by January 22nd when Santorum is, as Perry would say, lumped back onto that giant ash heap of GOP primary candidates who had their 15 minutes of fame only to quickly fade leaving only Mitt standing.

I also agree with HR that Paul absolutely had to win convincingly in Iowa to deserve any press. His third place finish should lead him to dropping out but Bachmann beat them to the quit. He and Perry are going to push forward to the dismay of everyone who wants a single anti-Romney candidate left to take on Romney.

Romney will be the candidate for the GOP in light of 75% of the Republican nation rejecting him now for 4+ years.

**NCRAVEN** · 01-06-2012, 03:11 PM

Originally Posted by Galen Sevinne

So this is your premise:
Romney will be the candidate for the GOP in light of 75% of the Republican nation rejecting him now for 4+ years.

HUH!?!?!?!?!?

I think he's going to need at least 51% to support him...

**wickedsolo** · 01-06-2012, 04:47 PM

Originally Posted by Galen Sevinne

So this is your premise:

and you use this to suppport it:

I am not sure how you extract from that train of thought that the media is somehow backtracking on what they see as the importance of Iowa when the guy who essentially wins Iowa (santorum) earns all the media. Sounds pretty consistent to me but certainly you are free to hate and criticize the media until your hearts content.

Actually I agree with HR here which happens about every 1000 posts. Most of the media I read downplayed Iowa from the beginning as no longer that important and that opinion was only reinforced with Santorum's unlikely success there. This will all be confirmed by January 22nd when Santorum is, as Perry would say, lumped back onto that giant ash heap of GOP primary candidates who had their 15 minutes of fame only to quickly fade leaving only Mitt standing.

I also agree with HR that Paul absolutely had to win convincingly in Iowa to deserve any press. His third place finish should lead him to dropping out but Bachmann beat them to the quit. He and Perry are going to push forward to the dismay of everyone who wants a single anti-Romney candidate left to take on Romney.

Romney will be the candidate for the GOP in light of 75% of the Republican nation rejecting him now for 4+ years.

I honestly don't understand at all why you don't understand.

The media starts talking about how the Iowa caucus is ridiculously important for the nomination process, which one can certainly argue that it is. Santorum, Romney, and Ron Paul finish within 4,000 votes of each other. The next thing you know, the media starts in on how the Iowa caucus isn't really that important.

So, which is it? You know? Is it important or is it not important? I don't understand how the media can take a stance on one thing and then basically go "wait, we were just joking". Completely takes away from the minute amount of credibility that these journalists and media pundits have.